Turkey: The objective was to get rid of all Armenians

[Harold Schiffman]

Saturday, 8 March 2008The objective was to get rid of all Armenians
[for those of you have missed Taner Akcam UK lectures, here's areprint of an interview from The Armenian Reporter of 16 February]
The objective was to get rid of all ArmeniansInterview by Efnan Atmaca
On January 25, the Turkish dailyRadikal published an extensiveinterview with Taner Akçam on his new book, The Armenian Issue IsResolved: Policies Against the Armenians During the War YearsAccording to Ottoman Documents. The book sold out within the firstweek of publication in Turkey. The title is a direct quote from TalaatPasha. The text of the interview, translated from the Turkish byFatima Sakarya, appears below with permission. It has been exactly oneyear since the assassination of Hrant Dink. Last Saturday, on thisfirst anniversary, tens of thousands gathered once again "For Hrant,For Justice." Taner Akçam, whose book, Ermeni Meselesi Hallolunmuştur["The Armenian Issue Is Resolved"] opens up the debate about whatoccurred in 1915 with new documentation, has also just been published,and Akçam, who dedicates the book to "my brother Hrant, who willalways represent the nobility and virtue of having a conscience… DearHrant, everything is as we had spoken…," both memori!
 alized his friendand brought a new viewpoint to the matter. By building connections,one by one, among new records he was able to obtain, Akçam brings newperspectives to the policies which were enforced against Armenians in1915. In his book, subtitled Policies Against the Armenians During theWar Years According to Ottoman Documents, while revealing each of themany telegrams sent by Talat Pasha, Akcam states that the deportationof 1915 was the last stage of the Turkification policies of thatperiod. In particular, supported by primary sources, he explains howthis project was personally developed well in advance by Talat Pashaand put into action through the efforts of the Teşkilat- I Mahsusa(Special Organization). One of the most crucial documents in the book,the one which gives the book its title, is a telegram from TalatPasha: "The Armenian issue is resolved. There's no need to stain thenation and the government with extra atrocities."
Q: The events of 1915 are a huge controversy. The opposing sides ofthe controversy continually claim to possess and then publishimportant documents, and argue about whether or not to open up theOttoman archives …On the other side, there are others who state thatin writing about history a "document cult" shouldn't be created andthat the process shouldn't be reduced to a war of documents. Meanwhileyour book is completely based upon documentation…What and how canrecords tell us anything?
Taner Akçam: If you are being open and honest, historical records caneasily provide a general framework for how events occurred. Still, youneed to distinguish here between two separate points. First of all,the main issue is the frame, the model you are creating when you aregathering these documents. Secondly is the question of how much do therecords you're presenting truly reflect reality. If someone possessesan understanding of history that is nationalistic and racist, thehistory they write will reflect that, and by discriminating in thechoice of records, they will try to prove that position. Additionally,the records you find and use are products of the ideological andpolitical beliefs of the period in which they were produced. It is forthat reason that the question "What is the truth?" is the subject ofsuch serious argument in historical scholarship. One thing is certain,though. The thing called "the truth" is not a thing, not a treasurethat is buried somewhere in the gro!
 und and it is up to us to dig itup. For example, if a hundred years from now, you were to research thebombing of the Umut Kitabevi (Umut Publishing House) in Şemdinli in2005, you would find plenty of state documents asserting that thepublishing house had been bombed by the PKK. [Translator's note: Thebookstore was bombed by army officers, but law enforcement forcesproduced some documents to claim that it was the PKK that bombed thebookstore.] Keeping these two things in mind, nevertheless the placeto start is the historic records. You have no other choice. Theimportant thing is to maintain a critical eye when examining anyparticular document or body of documents. First of all, in order todefend your thesis, you need to present a series of records that isboth comprehensive and widespread. Secondly, there should be acontinuous "balance and control" relationship between the records youare presenting and the argument you are trying to make. This isprecisely what makes history !
 a social science. The use of deep andvaried sources of material along 
with total honesty are the twocrucial elements of historical study.
Q: How important are the records in this book?
A: They are the records of a government and a party that managed todeport and kill Armenians in 1915. For the most part, they consist ofcoded telegrams that were sent by the Ministry of the Interior to theregional offices. When you consider the difficulty of communication inthat era through postal services and the like, the importance of theserecords is even less in doubt. In order to maintain high volume andspeedy communications with the regions, the government [at that time]had established a special bureau and by way of that office managed tosend short and frank orders to the regional offices. For this reason,these records provide a primary source of information about a partyand a state that planned a deportation and killings.
Q: Is it possible to state that, in view of the records which the bookbrings to light, there is no longer any doubt that what happened was agenocide?
A: Yes, we can comfortably assert that in light of these documents,the thesis that what was experienced in 1915 does not fit within thedefinition of genocide from 1948 is no longer credible and can bedismissed. The officials of the Turkish government, who view theOttoman records as the only reliable source, will see that ourgovernment records also show that the Union and Progress partyfollowed a policy that endeavored to destroy the Armenians.Nevertheless, there are those who will deny this, and they willcontinue to deny it. There are many people today, still, who do notbelieve that the Jews were annihilated by the Nazis. I need to addthis: In Turkey, particularly among those who defend the officialstate position and who claim to be historians, you will hear extremelyignorant comments like "Where is the document to show genocide? Proveit." Genocide does not have [is not proved with] a single document.The holocaust against the Jews didn't consist of a document here and adocum!
 ent there. What history and the social sciences do, or should do,is to illustrate the chain of events by way of an accumulated ball ofknowledge from as detailed a record of documents as can be produced.As the documents which I published show, how to label the events thatare described is a conclusion that you make based upon thedocumentation. In other words, genocide is identified by a certainpicture that is revealed. You give the picture that name, which is whythe picture you present has to be created by way of hundreds of tinypieces of information. As I state in my book, in trying to understandand describe what occurred in 1915, I did not have a special purposeto "prove" genocide. I find this kind of approach to be deficient andwrong and more properly the duty of a prosecutor or judge. However,after the publication of these documents, I know that those who claimthat what occurred in 1915 cannot be called a genocide do not havemuch more to say.
Q: Almost all of the documents you obtained reveal that the action, inyour words "to cleanse Anatolia of Armenians," was taken by thepersonal orders of Talat Pasha through the party apparatus, not thestate government. Could this be the start of a new period for theArmenian problem?
A: It absolutely should start a new period. Still, you need toremember that these telegrams were sent to the regional offices byTalat Pasha under the aegis of the Ministry of the Interior. Whilesome of the telegrams bear his signature, others do not. Those weresigned by the director of the office. These are state documents, notparty documents. Nevertheless, when it comes to 1915, I believe anddefend the notion that it is extremely important to make thedistinction between state and party. As much as the state was takenover by the [Union and Progress] party, the same party which defendeda dictatorship had rendered many of the government functions impotent.The very action that the party took was taken by way of governmentchannels. Still, within governmental organs, there were points ofresistance against what the Party was doing. If you make a state-partydistinction, you begin to see and understand that there were very manyhonest state officials during that period, who resisted !
 and opposedthe murders committed by the Union and Progress party. In fact, -someof the records are the results of the efforts of some honest stateofficials to have the events recorded within state documents.
Q: What sort of results, both negative and positive, can be expectedif Turkey acknowledges the Armenian genocide?
A: There isn't a single state that I know of or recognize that hasbeen harmed by acknowledging past wrongdoings. Is there any countrythat you can name which was beset with problems because it faced itshistory? None! Quite the contrary, those regimes that had tried tocover up history, that had denied the cruelties and injustices thatoccurred in their past, ended up facing very serious problems and wereeven demolished. Turkey will only mature and gather praise once it hasaccepted a historical injustice. A Turkey that manages to face thehistorical injustices of its past will be able to take its deservedplace among world nations with greater ease. So acceptance of theinjustices in the past will not only not produce any negative result,it will do the opposite. I would like to add that there isn't just oneway to face history and acknowledge an injustice. I would like topoint out here that there is a difference between scholarship andpolitics. As a social scientist you may not be v!
 ery convincing if, inlight of all the records and information available, you use some termother than "genocide" to identify the events of 1915, but a governmenthas many alternatives at its disposal when confronting history andacknowledging historic injustices. At the top of the list would be tostop referring to those who discuss it as "traitors," to stop killingthem or dragging them through criminal prosecutions. Freedom ofthought and democracy are the preconditions for acknowledging one'shistory. Secondly, you will need to develop a language that describeswhat occurred as morally unacceptable. A language that denounces andcondemns murders is absolutely crucial. After that, in harmony withthis new language, you need to take some steps that heal thisinjustice, that work towards fixing it. Here there are dozens, if nothundreds, of ways to go about this. Our politicians need to see thatthe matter isn't just about getting stuck on one single word. Theyneed to approach the probl!
 em from a rich and wide net ofpossibilities.
Q: If we look at the matter from the perspective of the Diaspora…inlight of these new found documents, what kinds of steps might theytake?
A: There is a very misguided belief in Turkey. Unfortunately, both thestate and politicians as well as some progressive and democraticintellectuals spread this mistaken belief and information. Accordingto them, the Armenian Diaspora consists of a uniform, monolithicblock, and there are some serious differences between the Diaspora andthe state of Armenia. According to the beliefs of those who hold thisposition, the real problem is with the Diaspora; the Armenians ofArmenia take a different position on things. This is simply not true.There is no singular, homogeneous, monolithic Diaspora , nor are thereany serious differences between the Diaspora and Armenia regardingthis subject. The Armenians of the Diaspora are as diverse in opinionas Turkey is divided into thousands of positions. …Among them thereare dozens of opinions and positions. I believe that my book inTurkish will not only positively affect Armenian circles but also willhave a positive effect in increasing the nu!
 mbers of those in Turkeywho will want to resolve our differences in a peaceful and brotherlyway through direct contact.
Q: At the end of the book you state, "What we need is to recognize thereality that we are face to face with an action that is morally,conscientiously unacceptable and to develop a language that expressesthat." What do you mean by this new language?
A: The language of conflict differs from the language of friendship,mutual respect and peace. The language that dominates theadministration and mainstream media in Turkey today is one that viewsthe Armenians as the enemy, as a traitor and the Other. It's a racistand aggressive language. The administration and mainstream mediacontinue to conduct the discourse around what happened in 1915 with awartime mindset. For that reason, historians like me, who thinkcritically, are branded as traitors, and they organize campaignsagainst us. Hrant Dink was murdered as a direct result of thislanguage and this mindset. First of all, we need to put an end to thiswartime mindset and to this aggressive language. There are many withinArmenian circles who see the problem with the same point of view anduse the same aggressive language. We have to establish and develop ahumane language that doesn't view Armenians and Turks as enemies,which doesn't brand the other as a traitor, doesn't demean the !
 other,and views Armenians and Turks with respect. Armenians and Turks willbe able to construct their future upon this foundation of mutualrespect and friendship.
Q: Another of way asking this is, what steps need to be taken so thatthe matter in question is resolved through democratic means?
A: Prior to anything else happening, the borders between the twocountries need to be opened without any preconditions, and diplomaticrelations should be initiated. It is very difficult to explain howTurkey can have no objection to maintaining diplomatic relations withSyria, a country with a population of 10 million which has protectedAbdullah Öcalan for years and depicts Hatay as falling within theirown borders, and yet reject diplomatic relations with Armenia, acountry of 3 million. First unconditional diplomatic relations, thenthe opening of the borders, and then the rest will come. Additionally,Turkey has to see that this matter isn't just about history. Turkeyhas to see that it has everything to do with how [Turkey] behavestowards minorities today.
Q: How do you evaluate the Hrant Dink assassination's effect onresolving the Armenian issue? In particular, would you characterizethe way society embraced Dink after the assassination, and the way itlead to openly discussing the Armenian issue, as a positive thing?
A: Hrant Dink was the most beautiful gift that Turkey could present toArmenia and the Diaspora. Hrant was the most important person whocould bring these two countries, these two peoples, together. When wewere in Yerevan in 2005, I used to tease Hrant that if I were theTurkish government, I'd have him appointed the symbolic, spiritualambassador to Armenia. Turkey killed its ambassador; it broke theolive branch that it could have extended. What's worse is that theones who broke this olive branch are organized within the police andgendarmerie forces. Those officials who knew about the assassination,who planned and directed it, have not only not been punished, theyhave been rewarded and promoted. I can't state enough how important itis for society to embrace Hrant Dink. Within him they [Turkishsociety] have discovered a dynamic, a potential to bring these twonations together. Both the Armenians in America, who are cursed as"Diaspora" in Turkey, and the people in Istanbul shed te!
 ars for Hrant.Hrant brought everyone with a heart together. He's become the symbolfor what needs to be done to resolve this problem. We must build amonument for him and memorialize him.
Q: Could the policy taken by the AKP (Justice and Development Party ofTurkey, now in control of the Administration) to act in harmony withan EU framework be a positive step toward resolving this problem?
A: I don't believe that the AKP has any thoughts on this subject. Theydon't give even the slightest indication of having any thoughts.Either they don't know anything about the subject, or they think it isenough to continue promoting the traditional lies. In fact, if the AKPactually followed their Islamic roots, they could make some seriousheadway on the subject. There's only one thing I could ask of the AKP,and that's to take their Islamic roots seriously.
http://setasarmenian.blogspot.com/2008/03/objective-was-to-get-rid-of-all.html-- **************************************N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service toits membersand implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owneror sponsor ofthe list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members whodisagree with amessage are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)*******************************************